Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Eléonore of Belgium


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Although there is some debate about where to draw the line in terms of inherent notability and royal succession, it appears that consensus is that 5th in line is notable in and of itself. Certainly this should be reconsidered if a later, more concrete, consensus develops that would exclude this article. Pastordavid (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Princess Eléonore of Belgium

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Simply not notable. She is a 1 day old baby born to royal parents. So what? She can have an article when she actually does something in her life in, say, 10 years. Editorofthewiki 10:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable in her own right. One can be the member of a notable group, listing, etc, but that does not make an individual notable. Maybe once she has official duties or is known for something other than being born. Charles 10:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * keep She is notable, since she is the 5th in line for the throne. Happy138 (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * delete Not notable in her own right. She could be listed on the page of group she is now a member of, but she does not qualify to have her own page. Jackmantas (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * keep Some people may well be anti-monarchy, at the end of the day she is still notable, regardless of age, due to being of royal descent. With the obvious caveats of protection for a child, there's no reason to delete;  in the event of tragedies, she would be Queen of Belgium, no?  Minkythecat (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've got to step in: I am a monarchist and I vote to delete this. Obvious caveats of protection for a child? Eventually would be queen of Belgium? Sorry, but I don't know how these could apply anywhere for the qualification of keeping this article. Maybe you should read the discussion on the article's talk page. Wikipedia is not a genealogical respository. The only places this princess is notable are in her parents' articles and in the article Line of succession to the Belgian throne. That's it. Do you know how many pointless or unnecessary articles we would have if we gave every single British dynast an article? Notable groups exist, not everyone in them is notable. Maybe you should follow what you say on your user page? Charles 12:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles, we can't give a page to every single British dynast, because some of them are completely unnotable, ie they are so far down in line, and their royal connection is limited to a great-grandparent, so they have no title, the monarchy they are descended from was abolished, etc. However, we do have articles for all of the British dynasts who are current members of the British Royal Family. Eléonore is a dynast of the Belgian royal family, and she is actually a member of that family, and moreover, the daughter of the future king. Morhange (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Who are you to say that they are not notable? I could write an article on most of them with more than is written about little Eléonore of Belgium. How many times do I have to say that other people having articles doesn't justify this one? Really, Viscount Windsor shouldn't have an article nor should Lady Louise. Look what's written about them! Royal watcher cruft, painful attempts at worthwhile articles. Daughter of a future king does not matter, there is no guarantee that that will happen and if I were to hypothesize as well I would say that Eléonore will likely never become queen. Notability is not inherited. Picture that written in big font 10 or so times as I'm too busy to do it myself. Charles 15:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:CIVIL. Just a hint there, tiger. There's somewhat of a difference between this page and some of the fluff in wiki. Minkythecat (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Civility isn't an issue which needs to be brought up, nothing uncivil has been said on my part. Charles 12:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course not; examining the user page of respondents to attempt to debase their arguments for/against points is of course entirely civil. My bad. Now, this is my last response to you or your comments; the AfD will take it's course and the community decide... Minkythecat (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions.   --  Beloved  Freak  12:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * strong keep royal house is always notable. Especially 5th to the throne. To delete is ridiculous. Migdejong (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How is it always notable? Show me where in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I know royal houses are always notable and lines of succession are, just not the people in them always. Thank you! Charles 12:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep due to being in the top-10 list in succession. While I disagree that being in the royal house is automatic nobility, being high up in the line of succession is.  If this person were 40th in line it would be a different story.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  13:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why the cut off at ten? Charles 13:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ten is a bit arbitrary, but it's a convenient number for European monarchy other than England. For England I would go as high as 20 or maybe 30, for relatively insignificant monarchies I might limit it to the children of the monarch or even the heir-apparent.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  21:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Limit articles to people who have actually done things, list the others where appropriate (lines of succession). Wikipedia is terribly inefficient and long-winded when it comes to this stuff. Charles 20:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Being fifth in line to the Belgian throne, she is definitely notable. A  ecis Brievenbus 13:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Every time there's a royal birth somewhere there's this same pointless discussion with the same inevitable conclusion. She's a princess and she's fifth in line for the throne and, regardless of her age, that's notable.  The 'child protection' argument for deletion is specious as well, she's a member of a royal family, she's a person in the public eye no matter how young she is. Nick mallory (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ...because people continue to vote "keep" without elaborating on their positions and default to a baseless argument of "royalty = notable". Charles 15:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment regarding royal=automatically notable: In this case, it's not important that royal=automatically notable.  The fact that she's 5th in line for the throne and that this particular royal family is famous makes her notable.  If she were a new Saudi Prince and 527th in line for the throne, or even 20th in line, then you could legitimately claim the person isn't notable.  Ditto if she were 5th in line as King of a non-famous royal family, such as some of the tribal kings in third world countries who are neither head of state nor head of the national government.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  16:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with Nick mallory. She's notable. If Prince William had a child, would his article be deleted? Eléonore is fifth in line to the throne of Belgium and the daughter of a crown prince, which makes her notable. People are going to be interested in her no matter what, because she is born into a royal family. Morhange (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I have opened a general discussion about the automatic notability of royalty and members of other seemingly notable groups. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  16:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The baby is notable in herself, and there is going to be an article on her sooner or later anyway.--Berig (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:SNOW? At 8 to 4 in favor of keeping, and the likelihood of anything happening to tilt the discussion in favor of deletion being approximately zero, if nobody else says "delete" within 48 hours of the original proposal, I think we can Ignore All Rules and speedy-keep this thing.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  17:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Let the AfD run its course. A snowball keep would be a misapplication of the snowball clause. 8 to 4 in favor of keeping is not grounds for a speedy keep. If it were 11 to 1 in favor of keeping, that would be different. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per all the arguments for notability above. Also, reccomend against a snow close. The delete arguments are not without merit and this AfD is a healthy one for the project. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs
 * Keep per the above - sufficiently high in the line of succession to be worth a mention despite her lack of personal achievements to date. I also concur with Gwynand that a WP:SNOW close is not necessarily wise when there are valid delete arguments. ~ mazca talk 19:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment First off, this should definitely not ba snow, and I will nominate little British babies for deletion once this is over. The arguement that royalty=notability must have forgotten that Notability is not inherited. So far, she has done absolutely nothing in her life except being born to notable parents. As to the users who say she is simply notable, how so? Those who argue that an article will be created sooner or later must know that in "later" you must mean 10 years fom now, when she actually takes on official duties. Perhaps if she becomes queen we can have an article. But currently, her rankings don't mean a thing, as people who are 20th in line of the throne have done more notable things in their lifetime than she has. Should they have an article? No! This article is nothing more than a factoid with templates, telling where she was born, who her parents are, and who her godparents will be. Perhaps her family will always be in the spotlight, but not her, at least for another few years. If she brings an attention to a cause because she gets some sickness we can have an article. If she for crying out loud does something that does not involve her relatives we can have an article! All the relevant material can and should be merged into her parents' articles.

Also, I may note that the de or fr wikipedias do not have articles on her, and they would be where information would be. Most of the keep votes seem to be WP:ILIKEIT or some sort of policy that hasn't been adopted yet. We do have a thing called Wikinews for up-to-date info and this article will most likely remain a useless factoid for years to come. Editorofthewiki 19:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment on notability of royal infants in general: I very strongly disagree that notability is not inherited when it comes to The Baby Crown Prince, and I disagree when it comes to other babies very high in the line of succession such as this girl.  I agree when it comes to babies some distance down the line of succession, and I strongly agree when it comes to babies way down the line.  IMHO, if the US Constitution said that the President could name the top-10 people in the line of succession to the Presidency without appointing them to an actual office as is the case today with Cabinet members, everyone in that list would be notable by virtue of being on that list.  If he was allowed to name the top-100 people in the line of succession, those lower on the list would not automatically be notable in my opinion.  The same logic applies to royal births.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  20:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please give me a policy for this. Absolutely nothing can be written about her except factoid-like information that would better belong in the parents' articles. Editorofthewiki 23:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll do better than that, I'll quote WP:N: This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. '' [emphasis mine]
 * And follow up with a quote from Notability (people): This notability guideline for biographies is not policy; however, it reflects consensus reached through discussions and reinforced by established practice, and informs decisions on whether an article on a person should be written, merged, deleted or further developed. [again, emphasis mine]
 * davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  23:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, I think that the common sense is nort to keep people who have done nothing in there 1 day of their living. Come on, just because she in 5th in line doesn't mean that she will be queen. Editorofthewiki 00:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm satisfied, in the absence of any other standard such as the rejected Notability (royalty), to include holders of titles, heirs apparent and presumptive of heads of state, and the progeny of both of the above. Outside of that circle, again inclusive of holders of titles, there isn't any need to have separate articles on the children. To Editorofthewiki, I'm always leery of the "it isn't on the other-language Wikipedia" argument, because all of those are smaller than EN Wikipedia. (The argument does work in the other direction for the same reason.) Also, it's not the DE but the NL ... and there is one there.) --Dhartung | Talk 20:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep She is notable. Lucifero4
 * Irrelevant. Editorofthewiki 23:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment at least partially establishing notability: Her birth was announced in the Sydney Morning Herald, the newspaper of record for Sydney, Australia.  You can argue that it was her parents, not her, that were newsworthy, but even so, I added it as a reference.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  21:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNEWS. We do have a thing called Wikinews for people that have done nothing except being born and being royal. Editorofthewiki 23:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Welcome to the world of royalty, Eleonore.  If you were a "commoner", these same people wouldn't think twice about deleting this oh-so-sweet article.  Mandsford (talk) 22:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. I can't believe this was even nominated. StAnselm (talk) 03:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * KEEP. Member of a royal family. Wikipedia has lots of articles like this, like Princess Alexia. Mr Store (talk) 04:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of which should be deleted, by the way. One fault doesn't justify another. Hopefully a sensible policy or guideline will come into existence to get rid of these pointless articles. Charles 04:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - She is the male-line grandaughter of a King, and daughter of future king. I really wish that people would realise that royalty are notable for being royalty, they don't need a seperate point of notablity. --UpDown (talk) 07:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes they do. She's just a little baby that has done nothing in her life. None of you are acting on any relevant policy and you are simply saying that royalty=notabilty. Let me ask you a question. Has this baby ever actually ruled a country? In fact, she hasn't only not ruled a country, but she doesn't even know she is royal yet! Most of these votes seem to be because you want to be royal or some other idea that notability is not inherited. Editorofthewiki 09:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does.The whole point of royalty is that they are famous for being who they are. You really can't seem to understand that basic fact. You last sentence is totally unsupported and verging on uncivil. People have different opinions, we believe royalty are notable for being royalty, you don't. You seemed to be getting awfully worked up about this and I don't see why. Accept that not everyone shares your view.--UpDown (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I accept that most people here probably haven't read what Wikipedia is not, such as it is not a genealogical repository catering to royal watchers solely on their interest. Charles 15:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Editorwiki and Charles. Honestly, I'm not aware of anyone who was "fifth in line" who ended up as the ruler of a nation.  The little princess should be mentioned in an article about Belgian royalty, sure, but her own biographical page, no.  Like every baby born on April 16, she's "special", but she's not special enough for her own article.  I can see where the heir apparent or the heiress presumptive might rate an article, but fifth in line, no.  However, Ed and Chuck, looks like we're in the minority on this one.  I don't get it either.  Mandsford (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was always told that even if you are right, expect people to disagree with you. This, however, is just laughable. I can see very, very little persuasion the side of the "keep" people. Their numbers are seemingly greater given the people who have replied so far but I don't need to tell people they are wrong for much longer when it is so painfully clear! Charles 15:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You really are bordering on being offensive, in assuming that everyone who disagrees with you does so purely because they're stupid and/or misinformed. In the absence of a definitive policy on the notability of royalty, it really does come down to peoples' personal opinions on what's notable and what isn't in this context. Someone who, quite feasibly, could ascend to the Belgian throne is, in my view, pretty notable. This is obviously a matter of opinion but it doesn't give you the right to accuse everyone you disagree with of being 'wrong'. ~ mazca talk 01:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You really are doing nothing but causing grief by trying to make a speech on personal opinions. I, personally, find a lot of what happens on Wikipedia to be offensive to the sensibilities of most people but you will not see me point it out over and over again unless it directly relates to the subject at hand. If you have an issue, take it to my talk page. Eléonore obviously doesn't meet the criteria for being notable in her own right. End of story :) Charles 20:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait, where are all the times I've 'pointed this out again and again'? As far as I noticed that was the first time I've even mentioned it, and I felt it was worth mentioning because the only two people arguing for this articles' deletion are doing so by repeatedly stating that the keep votes are all somehow incorrect or misinformed. ~ mazca talk 21:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of the keep voters are blindly saying she is notable without explanation. We really need to establish that guideline. Editorofthewiki 22:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment to Mandsford: In ye olde England, several people who were way down on the list usurped the throne.  I don't have data to prove it, but I suspect that some of the 1st-in-line successors to long-lived monarchs were 5th or further down the line when their predecessor took the throne.   All that needs to happen for this little princess to inherit is for her to outlive her older siblings and for them to die childless.  While this isn't terribly likely in modern times, children dying childless happened frequently in the time before modern medicine. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  17:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - 5th in line- its enough V1t 14:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Member of a reigning Royal Family daughter of the heir apparent to the throne has received much coverage in media I have found articles in many languages through Google News. Her birth has been covered. Today she has been presented to the media and more to coverage to come with baptism she's clearly notable. - dwc lr (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at the news now in Google. Princess was born, gives her names, weight and length. That's it. My, oh my, how notable! Charles 15:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not everyone agrees with you get over it. - dwc lr (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles, actually, that is the very definition of notable: The birth was taken note of in major media outlets.  What it is not is terribly informative.  What it may be is trivial.  Yes, you can be trivial and noted-and-therefore-notable at the same time.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  17:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the references are trivial. Whoopee, she was born at so-and so and weighed so-and-so. If she was born to any other family this would be undisputable, but since notabilty is inherited, her notrable parents qualify her for an article. Editorofthewiki 21:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, notable in Belgium. Just because she isn't some pop slut that every yank tabloid is drooling about doesn't mean she has no significance anywhere. +Hexagon1 (t) 00:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to her father, Prince Philippe, Duke of Brabant, the heir apparent, whose own article is not that long. The article about Princess Eleonore can be broken out again when there is more to say about her. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Ironically this could have been done by any editor and probably would have gone uncontested. Now that a lot of people are watching the article any redirect without discussion will be reverted.  In any case, if there is a redirect it should be a regular revert not the delete-and-create-redirect that usually comes out of AfDs.  Since her public life and as much of her private life as the popparatzi can get will probably be chronicled in the press, by the time she's in grade-school we will probably have much more than her birth details to go on.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  14:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I do agree that a regular redirect should be created, and I should have been bold in doing so, but whatever the result of this afd, I will do so anyway, since the closing admin will probably do a votecount without examining the arguements. Ah well, this will be a landmark afd. Editorofthewiki 16:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you do, please create a section so the redirect can point to the right place. That way, incoming wiki- and external-links will point to a place that makes sense.  Also, given that there will likely be objections, possibly even strong ones, please discuss it on the talk page before doing it.  I think you will have a lot of support for a redirect but you may or may not have consensus or even a majority.  If there is no consensus to redirect, please keep it the way it is to avoid a time-wasting edit war. If there is no consensus, you can always reopen the discussion every few months until a consensus develops one way or the other.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  18:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * By consensus do you mean a votecount of editors? As in this, the afd is likely to fail despite the illegitamate points of several users. Listen. I'll just be bold and do it and if anyone disagrees, I will discuss on talk. While I hate saying this, the article is simply royaltycruft. Editorofthewiki 20:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I do hope you'd discuss it on the talk page first, rather than possibly violate WP:POINT Minkythecat (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And how again am I disrupting Wikipedia? I am actually helping it by removing unencyclopedic info. I will Be Bold, and in case someone disagrees with it, I will be happy to discuss it. Editorofthewiki 20:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And you then run the risk of people reverting you, causing you to potentially 3RR. If it's discussed and agreed by consensus then, that's a far more practical way to do it.  Minkythecat (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Additionally if you don't agree with someone's point it doesn't make it illegitimate. In the absence of an official policy on royalty, as I said before, it comes down to what people personally feel is notable and it seems pretty clear to me that the consensus is strongly against you in terms of how notable royalty are. While a closing admin shouldn't merely votecount, when the difference in numbers of keep and delete votes is this massively different it's hard to claim the other voters are all wrong. ~ mazca talk 21:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep, close enough in the line of succession to a European monarch to be inherently notable. -- Roleplayer (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I vote Keep because being of the immediate family of he who is effectively Belgium's crown prince qualifies as being notable enough. Look how many examples on wikipedia we have. Both children of the Earl of Wessex have pages, and he is not even a crown prince. Prince Philippe is expected to be king someday and when he is king, his children will be even more "notable" than now.--Ashley Rovira (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Editorofthewiki 18:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Ashley has a point actually, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an official policy anyway. As the child of the next in line to the throne of Belgium she is just as notable as if (god forbid) the Duchess of Cornwall gave birth to a child of Prince Charles's, or for that matter as notable as Prince Henry of Wales was when he was born. -- Roleplayer (talk) 18:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The articles on the Earl of Wessex's children should really be deleted. One fault doesn't justify another, I imagine people are intelligent enough to realize that. Wait until this princess is actually notable in her own right before giving her an article. Charles 19:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

* Keep The fact that she is born into a reigining royal family is reason enough for her to have her own page here, I think. Royals are interesting people because they are royals, their rights derive from this and nothing else - whether we're republican or monarchists should not have anything to do with this discussion. --Rosegarden (talk) 23:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I highly suggest you acquaint yourself with pages like WP:INTERESTING. Charles 23:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The consensus is strongly against you here Charles, I hope that you don't believe you yourself have a royal perogative to 'boldly' change long established norms against the will of the overwhelming majority here. The whole point of a royal family is that they're notable for who they are, not what they do.  You may agree or disagree with the concept of royalty but by any reasonable definition of the word, this young lady is notable.  I hope you will abide by the decision of the closing administrator here, otherwise you're going to waste a lot of people's time for no good reason. Nick mallory (talk) 10:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure the only way to waste one's time on Wikipedia is to do it one's self. Most people haven't spent enough time here for it to be wasted. I see "royalty = notable" and not much more from many people, most of whom I imagine just watch AfD because they like to vote (?). Am I correct in believing that you are implying that I am unreasonable in believing this baby is not notable? I can assure you that I could push the same belief about the "other side" but it would get me in trouble now, wouldn't it? Your statement "The whole point of a royal family is that they're notable for who they are, not what they do." is false. The whole point of a royal family is to provide dynasts and successors and suitable marriage partners in political matchmaking. Will you produce articles on every single royal simply because they are "just notable as they are"? Honest question. If it doesn't make sense, neither does saying all royalty is notable. Charles 10:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.